FOSS4SMEs - 12th month review

Dear Partner,

For the purpose of the evaluation of the FOSS4SMEs project, we would appreciate if you could kindly provide us with your opinions on the project management and implementation so far. At the same time, please share your expectations, wishes and concerns in connection with the next phases of the project.
Your opinion is very valuable for the project coordinator and the whole consortium for continuing successfully with this project. Answering a questionnaire may be perceived as time-consuming; nevertheless it is necessary for improving the quality of this project and its products. As such, this evaluation is an integrated part of the project workplan.
Please do consider the following instructions when answering the questionnaire:

Please cast your vote per each question, keeping in mind that:

1 = Not sufficient
2 = Sufficient
3 = Good
4 = Excellent

Please provide also some written text in the boxes, especially in the case of negative opinions and judgments: explanations are important to understand weaknesses and detect room for improvements
Please only fill in one questionnaire per partner organisation. If you wish, you can internally collect opinions from your colleagues and respond to the question for all staff people involved in the project.

Please answer the questionnaire by the 10th of September, 2018.
Feel free to contact me in case you have any question.
Thank you very much for your understanding, your co-operation and your support!

Elisa Chiesa
FOSS4SMEs Quality Manager
Tel. +39 0287284807
elisa.chiesa@dlearn.eu

PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION

Question Title

* 1. Please give a rate from 1 to 4 to the following statements regarding Project Management and Coordination

	1 = Not sufficient	2 = Sufficient	3 = Good	4 = Excellent
Quality of Project management arrangements: the partners have a clear understanding of the division of tasks and responsibilities, the timing and the procedures	Quality of Project management arrangements: the partners have a clear understanding of the division of tasks and responsibilities, the timing and the procedures 1 = Not sufficient	Quality of Project management arrangements: the partners have a clear understanding of the division of tasks and responsibilities, the timing and the procedures 2 = Sufficient	Quality of Project management arrangements: the partners have a clear understanding of the division of tasks and responsibilities, the timing and the procedures 3 = Good	Quality of Project management arrangements: the partners have a clear understanding of the division of tasks and responsibilities, the timing and the procedures 4 = Excellent
Effectiveness of coordination by the project coordinator as for leadership and professional competences	Effectiveness of coordination by the project coordinator as for leadership and professional competences 1 = Not sufficient	Effectiveness of coordination by the project coordinator as for leadership and professional competences 2 = Sufficient	Effectiveness of coordination by the project coordinator as for leadership and professional competences 3 = Good	Effectiveness of coordination by the project coordinator as for leadership and professional competences 4 = Excellent
Effectiveness of the monitoring and evaluation processes: the procedures described in the quality plan are put into practice	Effectiveness of the monitoring and evaluation processes: the procedures described in the quality plan are put into practice 1 = Not sufficient	Effectiveness of the monitoring and evaluation processes: the procedures described in the quality plan are put into practice 2 = Sufficient	Effectiveness of the monitoring and evaluation processes: the procedures described in the quality plan are put into practice 3 = Good	Effectiveness of the monitoring and evaluation processes: the procedures described in the quality plan are put into practice 4 = Excellent
Effectiveness of quality arrangements described in the Quality Plan and satisfaction about Quality Manager activity	Effectiveness of quality arrangements described in the Quality Plan and satisfaction about Quality Manager activity 1 = Not sufficient	Effectiveness of quality arrangements described in the Quality Plan and satisfaction about Quality Manager activity 2 = Sufficient	Effectiveness of quality arrangements described in the Quality Plan and satisfaction about Quality Manager activity 3 = Good	Effectiveness of quality arrangements described in the Quality Plan and satisfaction about Quality Manager activity 4 = Excellent
Good communication/exchange of information with the NA: between coordinator and NA and between the coordinator and the consortium	Good communication/exchange of information with the NA: between coordinator and NA and between the coordinator and the consortium 1 = Not sufficient	Good communication/exchange of information with the NA: between coordinator and NA and between the coordinator and the consortium 2 = Sufficient	Good communication/exchange of information with the NA: between coordinator and NA and between the coordinator and the consortium 3 = Good	Good communication/exchange of information with the NA: between coordinator and NA and between the coordinator and the consortium 4 = Excellent

Question Title

* 2. Please comment on the choices you have made in question 1

PROJECT CONSORTIUM AND PARTNERSHIP

Question Title

* 3. Please give a rate from 1 to 4 to the following statements about the Project Consortium and Partnership

	1 = Not sufficient	2 = Sufficient	3 = Good	4 = Excellent
Good flow of communication among the partners: it allows confidence, open debate and continuous information of the people involved	Good flow of communication among the partners: it allows confidence, open debate and continuous information of the people involved 1 = Not sufficient	Good flow of communication among the partners: it allows confidence, open debate and continuous information of the people involved 2 = Sufficient	Good flow of communication among the partners: it allows confidence, open debate and continuous information of the people involved 3 = Good	Good flow of communication among the partners: it allows confidence, open debate and continuous information of the people involved 4 = Excellent
Quality of the meetings: the team has enough time/occasions to meet (virtual & face to face) to discuss, take decisions and solve problems	Quality of the meetings: the team has enough time/occasions to meet (virtual & face to face) to discuss, take decisions and solve problems 1 = Not sufficient	Quality of the meetings: the team has enough time/occasions to meet (virtual & face to face) to discuss, take decisions and solve problems 2 = Sufficient	Quality of the meetings: the team has enough time/occasions to meet (virtual & face to face) to discuss, take decisions and solve problems 3 = Good	Quality of the meetings: the team has enough time/occasions to meet (virtual & face to face) to discuss, take decisions and solve problems 4 = Excellent
Mutual exchange: there is an interesting exchange of skills and ideas among the Partners	Mutual exchange: there is an interesting exchange of skills and ideas among the Partners 1 = Not sufficient	Mutual exchange: there is an interesting exchange of skills and ideas among the Partners 2 = Sufficient	Mutual exchange: there is an interesting exchange of skills and ideas among the Partners 3 = Good	Mutual exchange: there is an interesting exchange of skills and ideas among the Partners 4 = Excellent
Understanding of the project: the team has a clear and shared understanding of the project rationale, short and long-term objectives	Understanding of the project: the team has a clear and shared understanding of the project rationale, short and long-term objectives 1 = Not sufficient	Understanding of the project: the team has a clear and shared understanding of the project rationale, short and long-term objectives 2 = Sufficient	Understanding of the project: the team has a clear and shared understanding of the project rationale, short and long-term objectives 3 = Good	Understanding of the project: the team has a clear and shared understanding of the project rationale, short and long-term objectives 4 = Excellent
Strong commitment to the project by each partners: willingness to solve emerging conflicts in a constructive way and engagement of the people in the implementation	Strong commitment to the project by each partners: willingness to solve emerging conflicts in a constructive way and engagement of the people in the implementation 1 = Not sufficient	Strong commitment to the project by each partners: willingness to solve emerging conflicts in a constructive way and engagement of the people in the implementation 2 = Sufficient	Strong commitment to the project by each partners: willingness to solve emerging conflicts in a constructive way and engagement of the people in the implementation 3 = Good	Strong commitment to the project by each partners: willingness to solve emerging conflicts in a constructive way and engagement of the people in the implementation 4 = Excellent
Mutual trust among the partners: development of positive attitudes towards to the consortium and the shared responsibilities	Mutual trust among the partners: development of positive attitudes towards to the consortium and the shared responsibilities 1 = Not sufficient	Mutual trust among the partners: development of positive attitudes towards to the consortium and the shared responsibilities 2 = Sufficient	Mutual trust among the partners: development of positive attitudes towards to the consortium and the shared responsibilities 3 = Good	Mutual trust among the partners: development of positive attitudes towards to the consortium and the shared responsibilities 4 = Excellent
Peer Support: effective peer support within each partner organisation and the actors involved	Peer Support: effective peer support within each partner organisation and the actors involved 1 = Not sufficient	Peer Support: effective peer support within each partner organisation and the actors involved 2 = Sufficient	Peer Support: effective peer support within each partner organisation and the actors involved 3 = Good	Peer Support: effective peer support within each partner organisation and the actors involved 4 = Excellent

Question Title

* 4. Please comment on the choices you have made in question 3

Question Title

* 5. Please give a rate from 1 to 4 below to the following statements regarding Project activities and results

	1 = Not sufficient	2 = Sufficient	3 = Good	4 = Excellent
Quality of the project: clear objectives, realistic timescale, consistency of the involved set of skills with the activities	Quality of the project: clear objectives, realistic timescale, consistency of the involved set of skills with the activities 1 = Not sufficient	Quality of the project: clear objectives, realistic timescale, consistency of the involved set of skills with the activities 2 = Sufficient	Quality of the project: clear objectives, realistic timescale, consistency of the involved set of skills with the activities 3 = Good	Quality of the project: clear objectives, realistic timescale, consistency of the involved set of skills with the activities 4 = Excellent
Implementation of the workplan: adherence to the workplan by all partners	Implementation of the workplan: adherence to the workplan by all partners 1 = Not sufficient	Implementation of the workplan: adherence to the workplan by all partners 2 = Sufficient	Implementation of the workplan: adherence to the workplan by all partners 3 = Good	Implementation of the workplan: adherence to the workplan by all partners 4 = Excellent
Fulfilment of tasks: the partners respect the division of tasks	Fulfilment of tasks: the partners respect the division of tasks 1 = Not sufficient	Fulfilment of tasks: the partners respect the division of tasks 2 = Sufficient	Fulfilment of tasks: the partners respect the division of tasks 3 = Good	Fulfilment of tasks: the partners respect the division of tasks 4 = Excellent
Respect for timetable of activities: the deadlines are respected	Respect for timetable of activities: the deadlines are respected 1 = Not sufficient	Respect for timetable of activities: the deadlines are respected 2 = Sufficient	Respect for timetable of activities: the deadlines are respected 3 = Good	Respect for timetable of activities: the deadlines are respected 4 = Excellent
Quality of the dissemination activities: the activities planned and implemented are able to give visibility to the project and to favour multiplier effect	Quality of the dissemination activities: the activities planned and implemented are able to give visibility to the project and to favour multiplier effect 1 = Not sufficient	Quality of the dissemination activities: the activities planned and implemented are able to give visibility to the project and to favour multiplier effect 2 = Sufficient	Quality of the dissemination activities: the activities planned and implemented are able to give visibility to the project and to favour multiplier effect 3 = Good	Quality of the dissemination activities: the activities planned and implemented are able to give visibility to the project and to favour multiplier effect 4 = Excellent
Quality of the outputs and results: tangible and intangible outcomes are of good quality	Quality of the outputs and results: tangible and intangible outcomes are of good quality 1 = Not sufficient	Quality of the outputs and results: tangible and intangible outcomes are of good quality 2 = Sufficient	Quality of the outputs and results: tangible and intangible outcomes are of good quality 3 = Good	Quality of the outputs and results: tangible and intangible outcomes are of good quality 4 = Excellent
Integration into ongoing activities: the extent to which project results/actions will be integrated into the partners activities	Integration into ongoing activities: the extent to which project results/actions will be integrated into the partners activities 1 = Not sufficient	Integration into ongoing activities: the extent to which project results/actions will be integrated into the partners activities 2 = Sufficient	Integration into ongoing activities: the extent to which project results/actions will be integrated into the partners activities 3 = Good	Integration into ongoing activities: the extent to which project results/actions will be integrated into the partners activities 4 = Excellent

Question Title

* 1. Please give a rate from 1 to 4 to the following statements regarding Project Management and Coordination

Question Title

* 2. Please comment on the choices you have made in question 1

Question Title

* 3. Please give a rate from 1 to 4 to the following statements about the Project Consortium and Partnership

Question Title

* 4. Please comment on the choices you have made in question 3

Question Title

* 5. Please give a rate from 1 to 4 below to the following statements regarding Project activities and results

Question Title

* 6. Please comment on the choices you have made in question 5